September 9, 2012

Video here. Transcript here. Romney's performance, responding to tough (but nice) questioning by David Gregory, made me think Romney would appeal to moderate voters when he goes up against Obama in the debates. There are a lot of similarities between the 2 men, in that both seem rather low-key and temperate.

I wanted to highlight the discussion of Mormons:

GREGORY: I want to ask you something a little bit more personal. You-- you both are guarded about in your faith. You talked more about it in the course of the convention. We came across a-- a quote from a biography written about your father in 1968 and he said about being a Mormon, "I’m a member of a religion that is among the most persecuted minority groups in our history." And here you are, the First Mormon to be the nominee of the Republican Party, you could be the first Mormon president. I wonder how much pride that gives you, how much pride you think it gives others in the church? Is it similar to what many Catholics felt with President Kennedy?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I can’t speak for all the members of the church, but I’m sure a number of members of my faith are proud of the fact that someone of my faith and our faith is able to run for president. My own reaction is I’ve got so many challenges ahead of me I don’t think so much about the impact this has on-- on the church day to day but more about what kind of impact I want to have on-- on the electorate and what it takes to become elected president. But I’m-- I’m convinced that-- that my background and my heritage and my faith has made me the person I am to a great degree. The Judeo-Christian ethics that I was brought up with, the-- the-- the sense of obligation to one’s fellowman, an-- an absolute conviction that we are all sons and daughters of the same God and therefore in a-- a human family is one of the reasons I am doing what I’m doing. It would have been very easy for me to just stay in business. I like business. That’s fun. But when the Olympic request came along, Ann said you’ve got to do this, this is important. And when I ran for governor, this is important, and now when I’m running for president. I think that comes in part from this Judeo-Christian ethic of-- of service and commitment to one’s fellowman.

GREGORY: Mrs. Romney, do you think that-- that Mormons in America and around the world, for that matter, have gotten past a level of persecution that they can very openly be-- be proud of what the two of you are doing?... This journey that you're on?

MS. ROMNEY: …I -- I certainly hope so. I mean it's always wonderful when milestones like that are accomplished. And I think that was why we were all so pleased with so many Americans. We’re so pleased with the -- the last election and seeing that a black man was elected as president of the United States. It made us proud as Americans to know that those prejudices that we've had in the past are -- are falling away.

There will be a first, whichever way it goes, either the election of the first Mormon President or the first black President to be denied reelection reelected. I loved Ann's all the prejudices are falling away as a complement to Mitt's we're all in this Judeo-Christian ethic together. And Gregory himself supplied a component of the discussion — through George Romney — that neither Mitt nor Ann needed to say — the victimology part: "I’m a member of a religion that is among the most persecuted minority groups in our history." (Note the moderation in George's statement, by the way. The "among" was unnecessary, but it avoids any fighting for the worst victim slot.)

ADDED: The strikeout in the last paragraph is a correction (for the obvious reason).

Yeah, I am going to vote for his moderate self only because I would vote for most people (including Bill Clinton, shudder) in an election against President Obama. However, I suspect his election will lead only to a slightly slower path to fiscal disaster. We should be in panic mode as the obligations of Social Security are going to break us regardless of whether we get the year to year budget under control. The moderates of the world are destroying us.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think it's at all like 1960. In 1960 there were a lot of conservative Roman Catholics who voted for Kennedy BECAUSE he was Catholic, which offset those normally-Democratic voters who voted against him because he was Catholic. I don't think there are many liberal Mormons who would normally vote to reelect Obama who will instead vote for Romney because he's a Mormon.

GREGORY: You know you could be a very unpopular president if you make tough choices that you say you'll make. If it came to it, if the only way to achieve a deal on the debt, on this fiscal cliff, was to endanger yourself politically to the point that you were a one term president, would you be satisfied with that?

MR. ROMNEY: David, I could not care less about my political prospects.

Indeed lol. willard, why are you runnin' for president if you don't care about the outcome ?!?

All hat, no cattle!

mittens probably really doesn't care as he'll still be rich regardless. His bottom line ...

Actually, it's a little less nasty than I'd expect from Gregory, but maybe the Lefties - the little animal and the rest of the trolls excepted - may be learning that character assassination is a losing game this time out.

shiloh said...

GREGORY: You know you could be a very unpopular president if you make tough choices that you say you'll make. If it came to it, if the only way to achieve a deal on the debt, on this fiscal cliff, was to endanger yourself politically to the point that you were a one term president, would you be satisfied with that?

MR. ROMNEY: David, I could not care less about my political prospects.

Indeed lol. willard, why are you runnin' for president if you don't care about the outcome ?!?

All hat, no cattle!

He's talking about what happens AFTER he's elected, moron, not the outcome of this election.

But he knew that.

Trying something that obvious and ham-handed is in the province of no hat, no cattle.

"Ann said...There will be a first, whichever way it goes, either the election of the first Mormon President or the first black President to be denied reelection,"

Hmmm...."whichever way it goes" ends up with Romney winning? Where'd you get the crystal ball?

Of course what he said in the interview regarding health insurance reform made no sense - high risk "pools" for pre-existing conditions only provide very expensive low quality care like mine ($1,800 a month for a $5,000 deductible plan) which is anything but "affordable, high quality" insurance. And his fiscal "proposals" suggest he's going to ask David Copperfield to write the budget!

Of course what he said in the interview regarding health insurance reform made no sense,...

Stop right there, Mister.

It's not a journalist's job to point out inconsistencies in the nominee's statements on substantive matters, but to ask them airy-fairy questions designed to elicit how they "feel" about the positioning of themselves in relation to unfounded notions surrounding their "religion," no matter how dubious in origin.

But even that's tricky. For instance, Gregory can't ask him on national television how he "feels" as each new bit of scientific evidence concludes the supplement business he runs is a racket - if if it was inspired by Joseph Smith.

And even though Ann sits on the board of a major MS foundation, you can't ask her why almost every report on how she manages it - including many about horsies - features practices and procedures that clearly fall under the heading of "quackery."

And we most definitely can't ask what these facts say about their judgment because - hey - who needs good judgment?

Let's talk about their "feelings," slap the heading of NEWS on it and call it a day, whattayasay?

We came across a-- a quote from a biography written about your father in 1968 and he said about being a Mormon, "I’m a member of a religion that is among the most persecuted minority groups in our history."

Yeah, it's it's just incredible how long nobody went along with that we-have-a-God-given-right-to-seduce-your-13-year-old-daughter-and-make-her-my-fourth-wife-thing.

I don't see any enthusiasm for Obama, in terms of his actual policies, out there... not even in Woodstock. So, his appeal is entirely that he is the first black president. And, the argument is that he must succeed so that blacks will feel good about themselves.

Not much of an argument, but it seems to have traction. If Romney can shed the Scrooge McDuck thing the Dems have pinned on him in the debates, I think that the racial argument will start to fade away.

MR. ROMNEY: David, I could not care less about my political prospects.

Indeed lol. willard, why are you runnin' for president if you don't care about the outcome ?!?

He said he didn't care about HIS political prospects and being a one term office holder....not about the outcome of the election. I'm sure he very much wants to defeat O-ba-meh and win.

I know it is hard for a little shitstain like Shiloh to understand, but some things are bigger than the individual. Saving our country and the country your children and grandchildren will be living in from descending into a socialist/fascist hell is one of those things.

Again...for those who are not interested in anything but themselves and trying to score stupid political gotcha points, it is hard to understand that someone might be willing to sacrifice their own interests and their own political prospects if it is for the greater good.

Unlike O-ba-meh who will throw the whole country under the bus just so he can keep power and the perks of office, I sense that Romney truly cares about the future of the country.

The most interesting part was that Romney then said something like, "Well I did health care reform as Governor...." And Gregory said he came away with the impression that Romney might turn his back on the hard-liners on the right to cut a budget deal. Sounds like the Etch-a-Sketch has been turned over again! This might be their "hail mary" moment - risk angering the base in order to get more moderates. Of course, it'll set him up to look like the ultimate flip-flopper...

ve said..."Shouting Thomas said... I also see nothing in Romney's career to indicate that he will launch crusades against abortion or gay stuff. He's very middle of the road."

I don't share your optimism. Romney's only political experience was in MA where he had to work with Democrats. In Washington he'd have the very Right-wing House and probably (if he wins) a Republican Senate. He'd have no incentive to be centrist. Also, considering the Mormon Church's intrusion into California politics in 2008 - a national effort to fund and organize for Prop. 8, he would definitely defend DOMA, reinstate DADT, support a "marriage" amendment, etc. And, I'm sure he'd do whatever he was asked by the Tea Party/Evangelicals regarding women's issues.

None of this "I sense that Romney truly cares about the future of the country" crap.

Or how about "Romney clearly said quite a few things in the primaries to appeal to far right Republicans that were pure BS."

Well gee, that gets my vote! I wonder how much of this "pure BS" he can get away with before we decide to find out what he REALLY MEANS (wink, wink!) understanding of course it'll change before every audience he encounters so, on election day, we'll have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO OR WHAT WE'RE ELECTING?

Shouting Thomas - "Anybody who looks at Romney's actual political career will conclude that he's a RINO. He's not an ideologue, just a technocrat and businessman, which is just what we need."

=================While I agree with your conclusion, I think the "meme" of DINOS and RINOS being advanced is corrosive and destructive to both Parties and America.

It allows the most extreme people in the Republican camp - the Ayn Rand Cultists, Fundies, ultra-reactionary Tea Party fringe within the Tea Party to have the power to define "Who is a True Republican". Accepting the stupid DINO meme they came up with similarly allows race card blacks, progressive Jewish Socialists, true Lefty Anti-Americans, militant gays, and greedy governmnet employee union bosses power over the masses. Power to attempt to intimidate and dictate to the other 80% of Dems outside those extreme belief camps to toe the line, or they are racists, bigots, regressives, not True Democrats!

It boxes pols in. Lick the boots of Grover Norquist or you are a RINO traitor. Lick the boots of Al Sharpton or you are a DINO. Compromise all common sense to meet ideological purity litmus tests.I thnk the country is ready for another pol with the balls to have a Sister Souljah Moment. Where the pol tells angry in your face activists claiming to be the heart and soul of Party and therefor "most Americans" - to go fuck themselves.

So. Even if he hadn't donated prop 8 would have still passed in California. But hey, I'm not seeing you look into the activism that sued the decision in court the day after it passed and seeing the will of california voters get eaten alive by those very leftard activists that wasted vastly more money than Romney donated to the cause.

Methadras, don't try to change the issue - ST said he can't "see him doing any of the things you've suggested. Takes too much effort." And this was right after he said the man was "pure BS" so he should've expected it.

Keep in mind, my whole point here is how you're getting played and playing yourselves, nothing more. You know my interests - you are WILLINGLY making fools out of yourselves.

That's what I look for, that's what you're doing, that's how it is - wise the fuck up.

Shouting Thomas,

Well, Crack, the contest is between Romney and Obama. Gullibility doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue is which one, on balance, is better.

Oh bullshit - you're not even trying to find out. You already declared you'll let the man spew lies to your face, so how are you determining he'll be better? You aren't. In response to your words, I just wrote:

I wonder how much of this "pure BS" he can get away with before we decide to find out what he REALLY MEANS (wink, wink!) understanding of course it'll change before every audience he encounters so, on election day, we'll have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO OR WHAT WE'RE ELECTING? It's gotta stop sometime, don't it?

Clearly, when it comes to you, the answer is a resounding "NO."

Now excuse me, but I'm going to go see if I can find you some knee-pads for your efforts:

Was never a Romney fan before but the more I hear from him the better I like him. Crack may slag him as a cultist (though the more I know of Mormons the more I like them) but he seems profoundly un-messianic, unlike the frantic, emotionally incontinent hysterics of his opposition. Speaking of Mormons, in 2007 our corner of SW Washington experienced a devastating flood. At the forefront of the groups that came in to help clean up and provide real unconditional help to the distressed was the Mormon church. They worked their asses off without any fanfare, didn't try to convert anybody that I ever heard of, and earned a lot of goodwill by action devoid of bullshit. If that's the nature of Romney's sinister cult then, please God, bring it on.

It's hilarious - some of you have a a cartoon mentality when it comes to cults ("didn't try to convert anybody that I ever heard of") it's no wonder they're so successful when their marks are so silly and ignorant. It's like they're dealing with children.

Compare your image with this one I wrote about this morning. And you should also notice, as I'm discussing the movie, I make the point the Mormons are no different, except in beliefs.

So you want them to "bring it on" for your short-term gain but their long-term rule over you and yours? You go right ahead:

I know I've seen another pair of knee-pads laying around here somewhere,...

Exactly. Most of us here really care about the outcome of this election (which will have one out of two possible outcomes) and its consequences, one way or the other. The fact that Crack doesn't care much whether Obama or Romney wins doesn't make him "less gullible."

On the contrary. IMO That just makes him more oblivious and tunnel-visioned. But whatever, I've given up arguing with a one-track mind.

Mr. Romney is already starting to turn to the "middle," rather than waiting till he's under pressure as president and "has no choice." He has already changed on abortion--he gave an interview to CBS in which he highlighted exceptions for rape, incest, life and...health. This was Clinton's position.

Oh, and in the same interview he said Roe settled it.

He's already thrown the grass roots under the bus at the convention -- with the rule change.

Let's see how many other ways he shifts before election day. Shake that Etch-A-Sketch!

Most of us here really care about the outcome of this election (which will have one out of two possible outcomes) and its consequences, one way or the other. The fact that Crack doesn't care much whether Obama or Romney wins doesn't make him "less gullible."

Oh yeah, you guys are really on top of it and concerned - that's why you've never bothered to vet the guy, will let him talk "pure BS," and you've done absolutely NOTHING to let him know he's on a short leash of any kind - that's you asserting "WE THE PEOPLE," right Einstein?

Please. You're proud of selling out your nation.

On the contrary. IMO That just makes him more oblivious and tunnel-visioned. But whatever, I've given up arguing with a one-track mind.

That's fine - I don't want to be with you. Anybody who doesn't have more sense than to listen to Clint Eastwood say "WE OWN THIS PLACE" and translate it to nothing more than LET ROMNEY DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO US is no "fellow citizen" of mine.

YOU'RE FOOLS!

Here's Jonah Goldberg yesterday:

"Right now, it looks like a contest between people with the wrong ideas against people without any."

AND YOU'RE GOING FOR BAD WITHOUT EVEN DEMANDING BETTER! OH, HOW PROUD YOU MUST BE OF YOURSELVES! TRUE PATRIOTS! LOOKING OUT FOR THE COUNTRY, YOU ARE!

Sure, if you think I'm going to stand with a bunch of morons talking shit because they're too proud to admit how stupid they are, then baby, you've COMPLETELY misjudged what I've been saying over all these years.

Crack,The problem with your Body Snatcher scenarios is that they assume we're all just ignorant schlubs and naifs waiting to be taken in by the first medicine show to roll into town. Incredibly, you're not the only experienced cynic to comment on this blog. I can appreciate the good works of Mormons (or Catholics, Hasidic Jews, Zoastrians, or whatever) without the slightest inclination to join them. Nor do I automatically judge someone based on their professed faith or ideology as one of life's little lessons has been that there is often a yawning chasm between what people say they believe and how they actually live their lives. Unless, of course, they're Muzzies. Fuck those fanatics.Anyway Crack, when I was 16 a clean-cut young man approached me in the parking lot of a mall, told me he had a book he wanted to give me absolutely free. I took him at his word, grabbed the proferred book, hopped in my car, and drove away. He never got a contribution and I never got a saffron robe and that Bhavagad Gita went to Goodwill unread by me or, probably, anyone else. I guess my point is that, despite your dire warnings, those who are exceedingly indifferent to cults are also exceedingly unlikely to be drawn into them.

If Mr. Obama wins, he will finish wrecking his party in a similar way that George W. Bush wrecked his.

Man, if I hear one more person blame Bush for something,...

The people of this country have abdicated all responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Every one of you has shot yourself in the foot and you're looking to Bush, some black guy, ANYBODY to blame it on but yourselves. Hellooooooo! Hey, Kooky:

THIS IS A REPUBLIC!

When are one of you going to admit you are taking no responsibility for this nation?

Oh, ROMNEY'S GOING TO FIX IT - not you! You don't have to do a fucking thing but wait, right genius?

"When are one of you going to admit you are taking no responsibility for this nation?" It is almost as if you think that every citizen has a voice, that there are no sites of consolidated power. When someone says "the voters are the owners of the country," an angel would lose a wing, if angels existed.

I do wish that I saw more politicians who had a strong belief in Hell. As in, even if they get away with something on earth, they'll be judged and sent to Hell for it, soon.

Very few politicians, whatever religions they profess, seem to believe in any sort of ultimate divine accountability for secret acts. Did JFK seem like the sort who did?

Romney just might. As a libertarian I'm not a rah-rah-Romney guy any more than other libertarians are. But he does seem like a decent guy. That's so rare in politics, I think that people don't know how to respond. And I say that as someone who doesn't agree with him politically, about a good number of things.

He does give a lot of money to charity. He isn't obligated to, in my world. Conducting business honestly, and being paid honestly, is completely moral, and nobody owes anything else to anyone. But charitable giving does seem to indicate a person who is interested in contributing to bigger things, not just buying bigger things.

Padre, Romney's held his position on abortion since '05 and, for good or ill, it's the one favored by most Americans.

But, just to give Oop a fit, let it be known he isn't that middle of the road - From his Wiki page (yeah, I know) He has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to individually decide on the legality of abortion. Romney opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[355] He has signed a pledge promising to seek passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to legally define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

AllieOop said...

Fr. Fox , perhaps it's time for the old parties to die, make room for something new, for the people, by the people.

Oh yeah, the People's Party, the party of Uncle Joe and Uncle Ho, of Mao and Fidel and Vlad.

Just what we need!

harrogate said...

Abortion is a real winner for you guys. By all means keep yammering about it.

Considering more people oppose it that support it nowadays, that's a great idea, hot shot.

The reality of women going to prison for getting abortions. Not to mention all the "little" side issues like, would miscarriages need to be "verified" or "investigated" or some other important-sounding word?

Polling on the abortion issue sometimes goes one way, sometimes another, and it always depends on the way the questions are asked. But if you think there's a plurality of support for throwing women in prison for getting abortions, you are fantasizing. One piece of evidence for my position: when on tv, pro-life activists and politicians invariably limit their screeds to the doctors.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote, "What you need to know here is that the right -- the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. -- hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don't want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo."

That's a howler even by Mr. Krugman's standards. Fannie Mae and Mr. Mozilo weren't competitors; they were partners. Fannie helped to make Countrywide as profitable as it once was by buying its mortgages in bulk. Mr. Raines -- following predecessor Jim Johnson -- and Mr. Mozilo made each other rich. Which explains why Mr. Johnson could feel so comfortable asking Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) to discuss a sweetheart mortgage with Mr. Mozilo, and also explains the Mozilo-Raines tag team in 2003.

Sigh. I always resolve not to get sucked in to this futility, but I'll make an exception.

Anybody who doesn't have more sense than to listen to Clint Eastwood say "WE OWN THIS PLACE" and translate it to nothing more than LET ROMNEY DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO US is no "fellow citizen" of mine.

Yes, because advocating for Romney over Obama in this election, voting for Romney over Obama, means exactly that-- "letting him do whatever he wants". Uh-huh. By that standard, I ought never to support, advocate for, or vote for any human being for any political office ever, since that means I'm giving them carte blanche "to do whatever they want to us." Thanks for the advice, I'll retire to my cave and abstain from making any political choices ever again.

AND YOU'RE GOING FOR BAD WITHOUT EVEN DEMANDING BETTER!

Yes, because after the primary elections and after the conventions and in the final stretch to the election, it's possible that some deus ex machina or electoral fairy or some fantasy of a revolution would lead to some other option than Obama or Romney. Who's living in fantasyland?

And by the way, I looked into, read about, researched, and "vetted" Romney as much as I needed to for my purposes. What you can't handle is that people might still find Romney an acceptable, even good candidate (for the present purposes, and against Obama) even in light of your continuous deluge of anti-Mormon links.

No Crack, they helped us clean up what we were cleaning up ourselves. While the steaming pile of Democrat kalakala we call a governor helicoptered in with the press, disrupted the United Way relief center holding a press conference for the toadys who followed her in, and then they all left, leaving us and our future Mormon co-religionists to get on with it.

"It's hilarious - some of you have a a cartoon mentality when it comes to cults ("didn't try to convert anybody that I ever heard of") it's no wonder they're so successful when their marks are so silly and ignorant. It's like they're dealing with children."

I don't think I would talk so much about children if I were you. Very immature comments by you so far. Did Romney cause you to lose your job ?

Anyone who thinks a Romney administration would spend precious political capital pursuing an aggressive pro-life agenda either knows nothing about politics or completely misreads Romney, egregiously underestimating his overwhelming concern for this country's fiscal and economic situation.

(NB to "pursue an aggressive pro-life agenda" is different from moderately limiting and counteracting an aggressive and radical pro-abortion agenda, e.g. one that would infringe on Catholic institutions' religious liberty or force taxpayers everywhere to pay for abortions.)

Romney is not Obama. Obama spent his political capital (and the precious, fragile opportunity of a Congress controlled by his party) on Obamacare. If Romney/ Ryan are fortunate enough to win, and fortunate enough to have a Republican Congress too, there are plenty of urgent five alarm fire things on the agenda. Abortion isn't on the list. That has nothing do with principles or ideology, but with politics and priorities.

The reality of women going to prison for getting abortions. Not to mention all the "little" side issues like, would miscarriages need to be "verified" or "investigated" or some other important-sounding word?

Oh, cram it. Back in the old days, when it was illegal everywhere, it was the abortion "providers" who went to jail and I think all but the gullible know that.

But, by all means, let's let abortion policy be directed by Left-wing harridans like Sandra Fluck and all the "social engineers" who want to destroy the family, church, and community so we all belong to the government.

It sounds like we are more or less in agreement. I am not so sure Romney is in agreement with us; if he is, then he is lying.

And Yashu,

In this thread I am not saying that Romney or anyone else will aggressively pursue pro-life agenda. (But then, I wouldn't have thought we'd ever have the Congress and President call a special session to stick their nose in the Shiavo business, so never say never).

My point here is only that that there is not a plurality of support such an agenda, in terms of what it would actually mean. And I wrote it in response to a commenter above, who was yammering about how Romney is "strong enough" on abortion, or something.

Seriously, I ask in earnest. According to your very metric, how is it at all just that only the provider go to prison? If it really is murder, and defined by the law as such, don't people who "contract" murder usually get stiffer penalties than those who carry them out?

Which reminds me. Mr. Senator Dr. Bill Frist "diagnosing" Shiavo on the floor of the Senate was one of the most comedic (but the people in the room were being dead serious!) moments in our legislative history.

AllieOop said...Fr. Fox, that's all reassuring news to middle of the roaders and liberals such as myself. If he wins, perhaps he won't be all that different from Obama regarding social issues.

I think Romney will backburner all the "Movement Conservative Family Values/RTL fanatics" pet issues.

Only the economy matters.

Women can rest easy if he is in office that about the only change for women he wants is more jobs and lowered healthcare costs sans the absurd "free contraception for 150K a year lawyer daughters of Obama fundraisers. No war on women. He said he would retain certain features of Obamacare that are good steps to cutting costs or getting the most vexing insurance problems addressed (exorbitant healthcare costs for the unemployed that can't deduct it, barring people with pre-existing conditions from insurance thus compelling the smarter ones to have no savings, assets, or homes in their own name..high drug costs)

National security matters to Romney mainly because we need stability to have a good economy.

If Romney/ Ryan are fortunate enough to win, and fortunate enough to have a Republican Congress too, there are plenty of urgent five alarm fire things on the agenda. Abortion isn't on the list. That has nothing do with principles or ideology, but with politics and priorities.

I disagree that the wing of the Republican Party that is elected based on their opposition to abortion is going to sit quietly if President Romney has a Republican Congress. If you think that, you are wrong.

I do agree that the Republican Party itself does not want the Abortion Problem, cash cow that it is for the Party, to go away. I've said this before.

Crack, It is almost as if you think that every citizen has a voice, that there are no sites of consolidated power.

Those are excuses. You guys not only won't do it but you don't know how, and I doubt you would if you did. Face up to it:

You're cowards, and comfy, and irresponsible.

BarryD,

[Romney] does give a lot of money to charity.

he does not - he gives money to his cult. That's hardly charity when they back him in his every ambition.

yashu,

Yes, because advocating for Romney over Obama in this election, voting for Romney over Obama, means exactly that-- "letting him do whatever he wants". Uh-huh. By that standard, I ought never to support, advocate for, or vote for any human being for any political office ever, since that means I'm giving them carte blanche "to do whatever they want to us." Thanks for the advice, I'll retire to my cave and abstain from making any political choices ever again.

Please. I've been saying we should vet that guy for over a year now, and what do we get? "How do feel about being the first Mormon candidate?" And you stand for it. No matter how much, long, or hard these people fuck you, you're still there saying nothing. Cowardly, comfy, and irresponsible.

With a single question, Joe The Plumber did more in the last election to illuminate Obama than all of you - the citizens, the media, the blogosphere - have done in this one.

You shout down anyone who dares to do the job properly, so what are you saying? You're marks, waiting for the con, and that's all there is to it.

Broomhandle,

No Crack, they helped us clean up what we were cleaning up ourselves. While the steaming pile of Democrat kalakala,…

I don't think I would talk so much about children if I were you. Very immature comments by you so far.

I know - it's very immature to say the people of this nation should take responsibility for it. Better to be like you guys and act like Obots for Romney. Geez.

rhhardin,

Anybody but Obama is the reality.

Yeah, but you guys didn't do that - you went the Republican elites' candidate, Mr. "Inevitable." The next in line. The guy you hated. But now you've deluded yourselves he's great. Come on, I've been as long as the rest of you, so you can't fool me.

At least I'm being consistent and don't have to make any excuses for it - you know where I stand because it's where I've always stood. But you guys? You've done a complete 180 on Romney - because you were told to - and think nobody's going to notice?

"I am saying it would by definition mean putting women in prison who are found to have gotten abortions.

And again, you can point to whatever poll you want, but you're not going to get a plurality of support for that."

Defining the political question is the first step of controlling the outcome, but please! (or Pah-leeze!) That is a straw man, not an honest assessment of the other point of view.

We used to worry about back-alley abortions or coat-hangers wielded by desperate young women. That's not good enough for you? You have to insist that someone is trying to make it so we can convict women of murder and throw them in prison?

"I disagree that the wing of the Republican Party that is elected based on their opposition to abortion is going to sit quietly if President Romney has a Republican Congress. If you think that, you are wrong."

People don't have to be *quiet* in order to be ineffective. I can't imagine any particular progress made on abortion. Maybe they'll get a partial birth abortion ban passed. Would preventing that really be worth continuing the new economic normal? If Romney's wiki is a reflection of his real priorities it's a kick-it-to-the-states policy.

My point here is only that that there is not a plurality of support such an agenda, in terms of what it would actually mean.

I'm not sure what you mean by "plurality" and what exactly would be in "such an agenda"; but I agree with you that at the present time there isn't enough support in this country for a too "aggressive pro-life agenda."

I do think there would be enough support for some moderate pushback against an aggressive pro-abortion agenda-- like I said, I think it's important to distinguish these things. In this case, Obama/ Fluke are the ones changing the status quo.

But in any case, we agree that Romney/ Ryan would have a mountain of things on their plate to worry about, and will need every last iota of political capital and maneuvering ability to accomplish even a fraction of what they need to do, and an "aggressive pro-life agenda" isn't part of that.

It's the press' job to do the vetting. But the press is not trustworthy, balanced, or even honest, in my view.

So how is one to vet, then? I learned a lot of interesting things on Youtube and via word of mouth about Obama before the election. For instance, the press did not vet the huge money Chicago gave to the felon, now in jail, (the one who subsidized Obama's house), who was supposed to spend it on fixing dilapidated projects in Obama's district. Here in CA, there were instances of the press shamelessly chopping off the end of a sentence Carly Fiorina made. Without the complete sentence, it sounded horrible, and completely changed the meaning. Nationally, Dan Rather nearly changed the election with George Bush.

I did my bit when I stopped subscribing to the San Jose Mercury News. I've also done my bit when I started looking around the web to understand more about Obama. Frankly, that's a poor use of time. My vote doesn't even count, since I'm in CA, and it will always go one way.

I can be a reasonable voter if the people who are paid and get special privilege (read, the press) do their job. But don't expect me to spend even a couple of hundred hours educating myself on Romney, or even Obama. It's a waste of time.

I know, I'm a "shruggie," but I have more important things to do with my time, like trying to raise my kids.

It's the press' job to do the vetting. But the press is not trustworthy, balanced, or even honest, in my view.

And the demand they become so is coming from where? Nobody here can say they haven't heard me say it. I've heard you guys going along. I hear it and see it everyday. There's no anger from you. There's no passion. You usually think it's funny - when you're not blaming the Democrats. Anything but laying into them yourselves.

If Romney's wiki is a reflection of his real priorities it's a kick-it-to-the-states policy.

I think this is a big part of Romney and Ryan's political ethos in general: federalism. Cf. Ryan's recent remarks on medical marijuana, and of course, infamous "Romneycare" itself.

In diametric contrast to Obama's administration, which is all about centralized top-down command and control from the White House, willy-nilly disregarding, flouting, or overturning legislation enacted by states.

That's just it Crack, I don't think of them as Mormons, I think of them as people. And I certainly wasn't blaming the Donks for the flood. The whole thing with Gregoire was just an interesting bit of cynical political theater that jus' folks like myself seldom see up close. After the press conference one of the press vaginal irrigation sets that had followed her to Chehalis was talking into his micro recorder, " Local residents have complained that Federal response has not been fast enough...blah,blah...Katrina...blah" (remember this was during W's time). I had watched the whole conference while I worked at the center and I know this choad hadn't spoken to a single local.

Isn't that racist Tea Party gonna hate Mitt for something? Romneycare, being a Mormon, flipping, whatever. They got enough shit on him to hate so they can ride him like a half-Black man. Trust the hate. It's always there, loaded and ready.

Seriously, I ask in earnest. According to your very metric, how is it at all just that only the provider go to prison? If it really is murder, and defined by the law as such, don't people who "contract" murder usually get stiffer penalties than those who carry them out?

Hey, that's the way it worked in the old days, the "provider", usually somebody not fit to be a barber, went to jail, but the Lefties want to scare the pants off women, so they create a straw man, just like Michael Dukakamimi tried to do to Bush 41 back in '88, so you threaten them with the idea of jail.

And, yes, rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life could be easily proven in most cases. But that's not the problem. the problem is that wouldn't advance the agenda, would it?

If it didn't matter so much I might send my message by voting for whoever the Libertarians have up this time. But Obama isn't going to change tactics on the economy, he just wants four more years to wait for it to get better.

So quit with the rah-rah, get your asses in gear, and tell the fucker yes, I'll vote for you, but your self-rightous ass is on notice.

That's all very well. But again, this is childish, and a false binary. In case you haven't noticed, Romney still has to win the election. You just don't want to accept that for anyone other than you, "vetting" is different from "attacking and tearing down at every opportunity." Ranting about an impending "Mormon theocracy" is not "vetting." Considering that Romney's experience and skills in the private sector might be an asset in a POTUS does not constitute blind worship. Etc.

You don't care if Romney or Obama wins. Others do. Again, you just can't accept that.

Every politician "is on notice" because they have to face future elections (not only their own, but their party's congressional elections). If you'd like me to attach a little note to my vote letting Romney know he's "on notice," because otherwise he'll presume he has carte blanche to do whatever he wants, I'll see if I'm allowed to do that. In the meantime, I'll do what I can (in my very limited power) to help Romney/Ryan win.

You shouldn't want Romney to win - fuck Romney - you should be looking out for our country. That's what's in trouble - even if Romney wins. Romney will be part of the problem, which is why he needs to hear it. His cult definitely needs to hear it.

PS And because Romney/Ryan have to fight against the tide (or tidal wave) of a media still overwhelmingly in Obama's corner, I do think non-MSM voices, citizens' voices, "citizen media" voices" have a significant role to play.

That's all very well. But again, this is childish, and a false binary.

Is not - it's the difference between what went on at the conventions, generally, and Eastwood's speech. He said, yeah, get rid of Obama, but don't forget who's in charge. All you guys WANT to do is give it away.

In case you haven't noticed, Romney still has to win the election.

So what? He can still be told we don't trust him.

You just don't want to accept that for anyone other than you, "vetting" is different from "attacking and tearing down at every opportunity."

Bullshit - vetting is making him tell us what we need to know - and not just going along with what ST said Romney was giving us:

"Pure BS".

Ranting about an impending "Mormon theocracy" is not "vetting."

No - it's stating a case you're uncomfortable with - and a danger we should resist at all cost. Ben Franklin gave us a republic "if you can keep it". That's Job One. Pooh-poohing threats to that makes you a traitor in my book.

And the demand they become so is coming from where? Nobody here can say they haven't heard me say it. I've heard you guys going along. I hear it and see it everyday. There's no anger from you. There's no passion. You usually think it's funny - when you're not blaming the Democrats. Anything but laying into them yourselves.

You're tragic.

I've done my fair share of bitching to them directly, including taking directly to the SJMN editor. Finally, what can one do but vote with their $.

" Should conservatives get together and draft a letter of demands, If he should he win?"

He knows what they want. Everybody does that's honest. Hint: It doesn't involve throwing granny off a cliff or forcing rape victims to give birth at gunpoint, nor starving the poor to feed his horse.

What will happen is that either Obama will win and the most dangerous cult/new age powers will remain dominant, destroying at least a generation of wealth, or Romney will win, and a less dangerous cult mentality that is tempered by a weaker government, and stronger individuals will take over. Still superstition based, but at least a little watered down as good Americans should want it.

Try reading a thread without reading Crack's comments. It's refreshing. The replies to him let you know what he said without having to slog through the self-aggrandizing and contempt with which he so freely indulges himself. It's almost like a civil exchange of ideas.

He knows what they want. Everybody does that's honest. Hint: It doesn't involve throwing granny off a cliff or forcing rape victims to give birth at gunpoint, nor starving the poor to feed his horse.

Right.

What will happen is that either Obama will win and the most dangerous cult/new age powers will remain dominant, destroying at least a generation of wealth, or Romney will win, and a less dangerous cult mentality that is tempered by a weaker government, and stronger individuals will take over. Still superstition based, but at least a little watered down as good Americans should want it.

Except for reversing the danger of the two cults, you've got it:

The Mormons are more dangerous because they're organized. In many ways their views are closer to our own, but they have to be watched more closely because they're like Gollum in the Lord Of The Ring. They've lied, cheated, stolen and killed to get control of Utah - so we know what they're capable of. Fuck putting that aside because they wear white shirts and long skirts. They are not to be trusted.

Here in Utah, non-Mormons have a kind of "you know how they are" attitude, which means you keep your guard up because they will fuck you - and think nothing of it. They look down on everyone who's not "in" and that's somewhat true of even Mormons I like. They're working from another playbook, so you've got to keep 'em in line.

Try reading a thread without reading Crack's comments. It's refreshing. The replies to him let you know what he said without having to slog through the self-aggrandizing and contempt with which he so freely indulges himself. It's almost like a civil exchange of ideas.

Oh, go suck a lemon. If I wasn't making sense, nobody would be talking to me. I'm sure there's a thread around here where you can hear the usual back-and-forth that adds up to the nothing you consider "a civil exchange of ideas".

The left's ideology has killed more people, ruined more lives, and robbed mankind of more than any force, or idea in history, and that was just in their first half century.

Mormon's are pikers. Nearly 200 years, and they have a city and half a state that lives relativity prosperous and peaceful with surprisingly few mass graves to their credit. Leftist ideas currently control my every move from the time I wake up and step into my flow controlled shower next to my flow controlled toilet, all day long where they tell me what I can drive, who I can work with, how much I have to pay them, and what I can say to my fellow citizens. I know who scares me more.

Regardless with Romney elected, we get them to fight each other. Win/Win

At a time of severe economic crises I can't believe the arguments made by several commenters here about their fear if the 'extreme right wing' republicans get elected abortion will be outlawed. Really, on a greater level, that the house flacks of the democratic party are able to gin this nonsense up and that the Kool Aid drinkers imbibe it is astonishing. For everyone who didn't sleep through or skip high school civics, those people if they were thinking rationally instead of emotionally would know that the probability of a constitutional amendment to outlaw most instances of abortion, never mind all abortions has a lower likelihood of probability than winning a power ball all by one's self. Does anyone really belive that thirty eight state legislatures are going to ratify such an amendment? What ever one's view on abortion, the supreme court has made it's ruling and nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to fundamentally change that. So whatever Romney's or Ryan's view on that is, it's irrelevant to what they can actually do. Harrowgate I trust you are capable of understanding this. Politics is about dealing with the real and the now. Strawman arguments like banning all or most abortions are philosophical arguments that might be enjoyable for a parlor discussion but are of no practical matter for the political issues at hand. The ERA, a far less contentious issue was sent to the states thirty plus years ago and still hasn't been ratified, so even if a republican congress were to actually send such an amendment to the states most if not all of us will be long dead before such an amendment would ever be ratified and that's assuming the currently politically impossible were to occur that a totally anti abortion congress would pass such a bill and the president were to actually sign it and it would then pass on to the states. It's just not going to happen. Not a chance.

Crack, your argument about Romney/Mormonism and Mormonism being a cult is a side show devoid of any practical reality. What as a practical full blown Mormon cultist could a President Romney actually do to effect the country? Nothing. So as a practical matter of governance it's a meaningless distraction. Even if we were to take your argument at face value or as lawyers are won't to say, in the best possible light, you overlook the fact that there are two, not one, cultists running for President. And the other cult has had a real effect on this country over the last four years and will have a real effect, a terrible one over the next four years if given the chance. So once again it's holding's ones nose and choosing the lesser of the two evils. So unless you can make a cogent argument for which third party candidate has a real chance of winning, voting for the 'ideal' candidate is just an exercise in vanity and a vote for the greater evil. So it's time to come down from Mt. Olympus and join us mere mortals stuck making a choice, a real choice on how the country is going to be managed or mismanaged. I didn't vote for Romney in the primaries, he wasn't and isn't my cup of tea. But he is the only viable candidate who could win against the current disaster. Regrettably my ideal candidate, a real fiscal conservative with strong libertarian streak isn't on the ballot of either of the two national parties. That is the choice we have. It is what it is. So sitting this one out or going third party is the same as voting for one of the two, most likely Obama. That is reality. Everything else is just commentary.

Methadras, don't try to change the issue - ST said he can't "see him doing any of the things you've suggested. Takes too much effort." And this was right after he said the man was "pure BS" so he should've expected it.

Keep in mind, my whole point here is how you're getting played and playing yourselves, nothing more. You know my interests - you are WILLINGLY making fools out of yourselves.

That's what I look for, that's what you're doing, that's how it is - wise the fuck up.

Lol, the lesser evils argument? From you? Guess you are staying home then come election day.

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama.This is all a distraction from the giant abhorrent elephant in the room: Religious liberty is at stake. Obama says "your freedom to worship will be protected", while forcing churches to do his bidding that goes against the religious beliefs. Obama and a lot of you lefties have a New York Times cartoonish understanding of religion. Quick, which is the largest Religion that believes in evolution? Hint: its a Christian Religion.

Well, one refreshing thing about this thread is that nobody here seems to favor putting women in prison for getting abortions. Edutcher, Synova, Yashu, and others reassure that this is the last thing that they want.

Somehow, magically, the election comes down to you, Crack. You get to do one of three things. Elect Obama. Elect Romney. Or decide not to play, and it's decided by a coin toss. Note, that in any event, your anti-cultist views will not be revealed to anyone, and so a principled stand gains you nothing.

So... I'm not sure if anyone ever wrote it or not but there's a story out there in the ether about a villain, the Bad Guy, who is evil incarnate, who gets put in charge of everything and holds power by fixing the economy, making sure people are comfortable and left alone, not letting his minions abuse anyone, and making it against the law to oppress anyone.

I sort of like it when you get all culture warriory. It's a nice tonic to your "culture issues don't matter, the laws that are passed shall be passed" schtick.

Synova, meanwhile, reaches deep into her syntax-box, writing:

"I'm a bit bemused as to how you could possibly have HONESTLY thought it might NOT be."

Synova,

And I, in turn, am more than a bit bemused that so few peopl who weigh in on this issue are willing to really and publicly confront (even on an anonymous blog!) what the consequences are, of declaring abortion to be murder, through the force of law.

I am, similaely, bemused that on the one hand, Republicans seem glad and morally proud that their plank calls for a constitutional amendment that bans it (at every stage, fofr any reason) as murder; but they nonetheless seem not to want to say, how that would translate into our actual practices.

; but they nonetheless seem not to want to say, how that would translate into our actual practices.

I'm pro-choice, but this doesn't seem much of a conundrum to me. We have a strong history of punishing a provider more harshly than the person seeking a service.

For things like assisted suicide and silicone breast implants (in the 90's), we banned medical practitioners from using those procedures or devices and fine them if they do. The person receiving those thing wasn't/isn't imprisoned.

We treat drug dealers more harshly than drug users, prostitutes more harshly than johns.

Countries around the world have varying laws about when abortion is legal and when it isn't. The US is actually quite lenient. Yet you don't hear about an astronomical number of European women being carted off to jail because they got illegal abortions.

And I, in turn, am more than a bit bemused that so few peopl who weigh in on this issue are willing to really and publicly confront (even on an anonymous blog!) what the consequences are, of declaring abortion to be murder, through the force of law.

Doesn't it depend on the law? Let's say the constitution defying Roe v. Wade were overturned, returning the power to the states (and the people). Then its up to the states to create the law, and what it means.

Maybe it means simply doctors aren't allowed to perform abortions after a certain period in the term, like late term abortions, without losing their license to practice medicine.

In some cases, maybe it means a new form of birth control pill would have to be created in some states, since it has "anti-attach" compounds. These would be highly religious states, that view life beginning at conception.

Who knows.

Maybe it means God himself will come down and explain "Look, that's not what I meant. Up to five years of age, children are considered property, and they are only worth 5 sheckles of silver."

Or maybe, women will use birth control more diligently. In the event they have unprotected sex, use the morning after pill, or (gasp) even be more circumspect about who they sleep with. Really, who is to say.

This isn't the 1960s anymore, you know.

And lest you misunderstand, to me, life begins at some point, where i don't know, but it isn't at conception. But I do not believe there is a right in the constitution to an abortion.

First, because the GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment calling to outlaw abortion under all circumstances, and has called for this for some time, it seems disingenous to deny that we must complicate things beyond "overturning Roe v Wade and leaving it to the states."

Second, I do not think the drug dealer/prostitution provider analogy holds up, because ostensibly anyway, what we are talking about is *murder*. Maybe I am wrong here, but as far as I know it is still the case that when you pay someone to commit murder on your behalf, it would be unlikely indeed that your punishment would be less than the punishment given to the person you paid.

This is why putting all the emphasis on doctors is deceitful rhetoric. I suspect the reason that the rhetoric works that way is because a low percentage of Americans, in the end, wants to confront even the possibility, of the women themselves receiving prison sentences as murderers, ni this context.

For example, here are Poland's strict laws:Availability: Under certain conditions

Gestational limit: 12 weeks

Conditions: Allowed to save a woman's life, to preserve her mental or physical health or in the cases of rape or incest or foetal impairment. The procedure must be performed by an obstetrician or gynaecologist who has passed the national proficiency tests.

After 12 weeks, abortions are allowed only if continued pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the pregnant woman. It must be performed in a hospital or clinic with the consent of the pregnant woman or her parents or guardian if she is a minor.

Yet you don't hear about Polish women being jailed for trying to get illegal abortions.

The US would not be the first country to put strict restrictions on abortion. We don't need to act like it would be about throwing women in jail, because we see that other countries manage to make it work.

Why do people who love to talk about how Europe does things so much better than the US always avoid European abortion laws?

Second, I do not think the drug dealer/prostitution provider analogy holds up, because ostensibly anyway, what we are talking about is *murder*. Maybe I am wrong here, but as far as I know it is still the case that when you pay someone to commit murder on your behalf, it would be unlikely indeed that your punishment would be less than the punishment given to the person you paid.

There are varying levels of murder. Not all kinds are treated the same, and I don't see why abortion laws couldn't take the unique nature of the situation under consideration, as so many of our other laws do.

You can make it black and white if you think it suits your argument, but that isn't the way any crime is treated, murder included.

I do think aborting a perfectly healthy 8 month old fetus is pretty darn close to homicide, though.

last election we were told every day how "historic" it was and there was an eagerness to be part of the history, etc. That's why the Obots came out in full force. Smarter people saw through the hype and didn't vote for the SCOAMF, but nevertheless, the election of Romney would also be incredibly historic and yet we don't hear that on a daily basis. I, for one, look forward to the day Americans cast aside their long-standing bigotry against Mormons and elect Romney as president. Unlike Obama, he's actually qualified for the job, not just some empty chair.

This tired tractics of the left, as if abortion has anything o do with the President, the only determining factors are courts.

Even if the wrost case scenario happened, no one knows how a Supreme Court Judge would rule, even a one nominated by a conservative, look a Obamcare.

As well as gay marriage, it's the courts , what President is there will not change one thing, Massachustts courts allowed gay marriage while Romney was Governor.

People pretend as if Roe was overturned it would effect anyone's life, at most it would be 1 or 2 states who would pick to not allow abortions, unless you live in Utah... And have an aboration once a month, It would EFFECT NO ONES LIFE.

But you know what will effect every citizens life, Obamacare, a entitlement crisis, the debt bomb that democrats are happy pursuing, real unemplyment at 19% , a stagnate economy .

What Fridays job numbers showed , that after 4 years, the econmy and jobs , are not only worse then before the recession, but that 3 1/3 years into a " recovery" they are going from bad ...to worse... the wrong direction, keep THAT in mind when voting , not the bull that Democrat's what to manupliate the public with.

And the path of decline for America, Obama is determined to see happen.

Don't let the left and their proproganda change what the real issues are, with thier small ball tactics and character assasintation... They didn't take over one nation after other without knowing the propaganda game it's the governing one they can't figure out.